Retro POY '98-99 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

I disagree with everybody bashing Alonzo here. Inidividually, he played well.

Maybe you need to be more a part of the NY-MIA rivalry....there was no way these teams weren't going to have an amazing physical battle here. They were slow defensive teams to begin with, and they hated each other. If this was a 17 game series, I wouldn't be surprised if it was 8-8, and tied at the end of regulation of the 17th game.

Also, when looking at the Knicks of this post-season, don't look at what Duncan did against NY and compare it to Zo. Why not? Because Patrick Ewing played quality minutes against his old rival in the first round series. He was out against SA.

The Heat supporting cast shot horribly. Alonzo produced all series. Okay, he didn't raise his game to the level of peak Hakeem or Kareem, but I don't think he should be the fall guy for this upset, which imo wasn't much of an upset anyway. I mean, the Knicks did make it all the way to the finals, so they "upset" a few other teams, too.

[ElGee]

I really don't understand how people can have Duncan so high, but especially over Shaq. We all read the part where we don't reward the guy simply because his team went farther in the playoffs, right?

C'mon. He was a monster that year. Quality efficiency, production and all-around numbers during regular season. Insanely good defense. In the playoffs he was significantly better. He had one playoff game against Portland marred with foul trouble and two bad shooting nights against Minnesota. Other than that he was great, and look at the two closeout games against LA and New York. It was like a clinic.

37-14, 33-14 v LA, 28-18, 31-9 against New York.

He had a slow start to the season but after February (final 36 games, or 72% of the season) averaged 22.8 ppg 11 rpg 2.7 blocks 1.1 steals and the Spurs finished 31-5. His play -- and production -- is basically just short of his peak...so given the lack of ridiculous competition, the question is how could you have him so low?

Forget the 15-2 postseason and that they couldn't meet a viable opponent. He just played amazing basketball.

[Gongxi]

How does that even compare to what Shaq did in just 35 minutes a game?

[ElGee]

How does that even compare to what Shaq did in just 35 minutes a game?

I'm not sure why you're hyping the 35 mpg aspect. I thought that was a weakness for Shaq. His defense was really not very good. I won't elaborate because I haven't broken down a lot of film but the few available statistics support my memory of that. Most importantly, doing more in less time is a reflection that someone is a better player (or holds more potential), but it doesn't mean they did more. Maybe you're using different criteria, but I thought you valued production.

(If a guy scored 20 ppg in 20 mpg, he may be the best player in the league, but it's pretty hard for him to have the best year/the most impact that year without playing in more of the game.)

[Doctor MJ]

How does that even compare to what Shaq did in just 35 minutes a game?

Wait, so now the 35 minutes is an argument for Shaq? I'll back to win shares - don't know what you think of that particular stat, but it's meant to be a cumulative impact instead of a per possession thing like PER: In the regular season, Shaq had 9.0, Duncan had 8.7. And of course in terms of non-box score impact, the guy who plays more minutes always has a bit of an edge there. Now add in that Duncan's stats would look bigger if he wasn't next to Robinson.

So you can make a plenty good case for Duncan just based on the regular season, then he kicks it up a notch in the playoffs being the clear star on a team that dominated the competition like very few in history ever have.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not sure why you're hyping the 35 mpg aspect. I thought that was a weakness for Shaq.

Yeah, it's as if Gongxi's looking at this like actual playing time is separate from how good a player is. I don't really get it.

[Gongxi]

It means his production was off the charts. Like...far and away. When someone scores more (5 more points a game is nothing to scoff at) and does it much more efficiently (58% to 54% TS) in less time on the court, that's pretty important. If some guy scored 20ppg in 20mpg, that's great, but that's not really applicable to what we're talking about. He didn't just do better per minute, he did better per game...in less minutes. He averaged a rebound less, sure. He also got roughly the same amount of assists.

Basically, except for that rebound he either did every Duncan did that year or bettered it in less time. When I get the same amount of food for less money, I consider that a bargain. That's more bang for my buck. When I get more food for less money, we've reached another level. And that's where Shaq was as compared to Duncan that year.

[ElGee]

It means his production was off the charts. Like...far and away. When someone scores more (5 more points a game is nothing to scoff at) and does it much more efficiently (58% to 54% TS) in less time on the court, that's pretty important. If some guy scored 20ppg in 20mpg, that's great, but that's not really applicable to what we're talking about. He didn't just do better per minute, he did better per game...in less minutes. He averaged a rebound less, sure. He also got roughly the same amount of assists.

Basically, except for that rebound he either did every Duncan did that year or bettered it in less time. When I get the same amount of food for less money, I consider that a bargain. That's more bang for my buck. When I get more food for less money, we've reached another level. And that's where Shaq was as compared to Duncan that year.

I still don't get what the fewer minutes has do with how well he did per game. Why is it better if he's off the court for 4 more minutes per game?

Furthermore, Shaq's using a few more possessions per game to get those 5 points, so lets not go nuts over that difference (and I'm OK with saying Shaq was better offensively). Duncan was on a great team in a weak year and it was unnecessary for him to command a huge number of possessions. In 6 of those final 12 postseason games, he did take on a greater load (19+ FGA's) and averaged 29.2 points on .575 TS% in those games, so it's not like he wasn't an elite scoring option.

And, most importantly, you're overlooking the massive defensive difference between the two. I'd argue Shaq had a greater defensive improvement from 99 to 00 than offensive improvement. They didn't jump from 23rd to 1st because of Kobe's improvement and replacing Reid/Knight with AC Green.

Duncan's overall postseason, which was awesome, has to count for something, no?

[Gongxi]

It means his production was off the charts. Like...far and away. When someone scores more (5 more points a game is nothing to scoff at) and does it much more efficiently (58% to 54% TS) in less time on the court, that's pretty important. If some guy scored 20ppg in 20mpg, that's great, but that's not really applicable to what we're talking about. He didn't just do better per minute, he did better per game...in less minutes. He averaged a rebound less, sure. He also got roughly the same amount of assists.

Basically, except for that rebound he either did every Duncan did that year or bettered it in less time. When I get the same amount of food for less money, I consider that a bargain. That's more bang for my buck. When I get more food for less money, we've reached another level. And that's where Shaq was as compared to Duncan that year.

I still don't get what the fewer minutes has do with how well he did per game. Why is it better if he's off the court for 4 more minutes per game?

His production is already better than Duncan's. It just looks "more better" when you take into account he did it in less time. If we're in the basketweaving business and I weave a basket worth 5 bucks and you weave one worth $4.80, I'm doing better than you are already. If yours takes 40 minutes to make and mine takes 35...who could argue that you're a better basketweaver?

Furthermore, Shaq's using a few more possessions per game to get those 5 points, so lets not go nuts over that difference (and I'm OK with saying Shaq was better offensively). Duncan was on a great team in a weak year and it was unnecessary for him to command a huge number of possessions. In 6 of those final 12 postseason games, he did take on a greater load (19+ FGA's) and averaged 29.2 points on .575 TS% in those games, so it's not like he wasn't an elite scoring option.

And, most importantly, you're overlooking the massive defensive difference between the two. I'd argue Shaq had a greater defensive improvement from 99 to 00 than offensive improvement. They didn't jump from 23rd to 1st because of Kobe's improvement and replacing Reid/Knight with AC Green.

I think the massive scoring difference already makes up for it. In spades, really.

Duncan's overall postseason, which was awesome, has to count for something, no?

It was good. So was Shaq's. Duncan's was longer, but I don't think that overcomes what Shaq was already doing.

[ElGee]

But this isn't basket weaving. The analogy points out who might be potentially better or who played better per minute, but basketball is a game which measures results after every game, not every minute. Based on this logic Manu Ginobili is really really good (which I agree with), he's just not doing as much as other elite players on a regular basis...but should still be in the top 5?? Should I go back and replace KG with Leon Powe in the top 5 in 2008?

I'll phone the 80s and tell Alex English and Dominique Wilkins they have your approval.

[Gongxi]

If Manu actually outplayed Wade or Kobe or LeBron and played fewer minutes? Yes. If Powe outplayed Garnett and played fewer minutes? Yes.

You seem to be looking only at one part of the equation, and that's the per minute production. Also look at total production: he's better there too! It just makes the contrast that much starker. If a guy averaged 30/15/15 in 30 minutes and another guy averaged 25/10/10 in 40, wouldn't you not only say the first guy was better but actually use his vastly superior per minute production as another strong point for him? That's what this is. This isn't Leon Powe being better than KG per minute, but worse overall. It's Leon Powe being better than KG per minute and in gross totals. At that point, Powe is just plain better than Garnett.

[ElGee]

I think you're looking at one part of the equation -- you're completely leaving out defensive impact. That's why Powe was actually an apt comparison. WIth him on the court, the Celtics were solid defensively, with KG they were historically good. It's a similar analogue with Shaq and Duncan in 1999.

So again, I don't think it's wrong to say he's just plain better on offense (and I'm still not that sure what per minute has to do with it if he's just better per game, overall). But it's not by miles. And certainly not when you consider Duncan's growth with experience at that point in his career (which was reflected in the playoffs IMO).

[Gongxi]

I'm leaving it out because I don't think it counteracts Shaq's superiority on the offensive side of the ball. Especially considering that in basketball great individual offense will beat great individual defense almost every single time.

Remember, Shaq wasn't just better than Duncan with regards to offensive production the whole season through...he did it in less time. He didn't just weave a better basket, he did it faster, too.

[mysticbb]

Somewhat.

What does "somewhat" mean in this case? Can you be more specific?

But there are many other factors to consider when evaluating performance though, including the manner those stats were acquired.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't answer my question.

[CellarDoor]

1. Duncan
2. Shaq
3. Malone
4. Mourning
5. Hill

Everyone's arguments are already listed. I don't see a point in going too far into this. The last spot could've gone to Robinson or Kidd too, but I opted to go with Hill.

[semi-sentient]

Hill is a good choice at #5, so I added him to my rankings.

I don't think I'm going to change my #1 as Duncan was too good throughout to slide any, so now it's just a question of how to rank Shaq and Malone. I'm leaning towards Malone because the Jazz were way better defensively, and the advanced stats, which I hate going by, seem to indicate that he and Ostertag were the biggest reasons for that. In general, I don't think that Malone has a bigger impact than Shaq defensively, but The Diesel was particularly bad that year so it's hard to ignore.

I might change my mind before it's all said and done though. I really don't feel all that hot about having Malone over Shaq, but then I'd have to ignore a lot of what I based my arguments off of in the past.

[Silver Bullet]

Count me amongst the folks who are a little mystified at the Duncan love -

Shaq lead the league in FG%, was 2nd in scoring, led BY FAR in PER, was 2nd in Win Shares, was 2nd in WS48 (Robinson was first) -

Compared to Duncan he went to the line 5 times more, scored 8 more ppg, .2 more apg, his to% is better, trb% is better, orb% is miles ahead of Duncan, drb% is better, ortg is 9 pts better (a massive difference and his Drtg is 102 - which is not all that bad.

And I mean, you do need to factor in Dell Harris' lameness and David Robinson's standing as one of the greatest defensive centers in history in there.

[CellarDoor]

Count me amongst the folks who are a little mystified at the Duncan love -

Shaq lead the league in FG%, was 2nd in scoring, led BY FAR in PER, was 2nd in Win Shares, was 2nd in WS48 (Robinson was first) -

Compared to Duncan he went to the line 5 times more, scored 8 more ppg, .2 more apg, his to% is better, trb% is better, orb% is miles ahead of Duncan, drb% is better, ortg is 9 pts better (a massive difference and his Drtg is 102 - which is not all that bad.

And I mean, you do need to factor in Dell Harris' lameness and David Robinson's standing as one of the greatest defensive centers in history in there.

First of all, you should mention that this is per 36. Second of all that "massive" difference in ORTG is offset by a "massiver" difference in DRTG. Shaq's number's came on 5% higher usage, and he got thoroughly outperformed in the POs with a lower offensive rating and a worse defensive rating (since you want to use those stats).

There's nothing wrong with putting Shaq at 1, but there's no reason to be mystified at the alternative.

For those curious, here's their head to head for the season: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=1999

[ItsMillerTime]

Updated my rankings on the 1st page. Felt the defense and playoff run by Duncan surpassed the epic offense of Shaq.

[Optimism Prime]

Also, Shaq's "huge advantage" at the free throw line got him, on average, .6 ppg more than Duncan.

He went to the line more because that's how you slow down Shaq... why is this being trumpeted as a good thing?

ortg is 9 pts better (a massive difference and his Drtg is 102 - which is not all that bad.

And while Shaq's DRTG was 102, and that's not bad... it's also a worse mark than Duncan has ever posted. Duncan's this season was 91.

Duncan: ORTG: 106; DRTG: 91.
Shaq: ORTG: 115; DRTG: 102.

Put another way--yes, Shaq had a massive difference in offensive rating which was SMALLER THAN the difference in defensive rating...